Slashdot Mirror
Domain: tcmagazine.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to tcmagazine.com.
Comments · 261
-
Pot calling the kettle black?
Can't take critique, self-appointed critic, though you dish it out yourself?
"So much for the ethic of graciously accepting criticism" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04, @12:57AM (#27061255)
Once more: Is reading comprehension an issue over there?
Hooked on Phonics may be needed for you, as this obviously (to anyone that can read English that is) isn't ENGLISH CLASS, it's the IT section which is clearly noted on the start page of this thread...
(As if the topic material doesn't indicate that much... and, they're critiquing anyone's English skills? LOL: These 'ac's' can't even read, thus, my init. post is correct: They're off topic... & imo, rather weak in this field of endeavor because they're undeniably off topic...
I.E.-> Can you show anyone reading here where you once contributed useful information on this malware & how to stop it? Not that I noticed... and, you certainly aren't even demonstrating you can read, because this forums section is about computing topics (not English).
I will right here -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=4480cdfb1e9cbe6c2729528f8c75dff7&showtopic=2662
See the "VIRUS REMOVAL SECTION" there... it gives a generic set of tools/tips/tricks/techniques in an article I authored that got me paid $100 over @ PCPitstop for winning their monthly contest, and was made an "ESSENTIAL GUIDE/sticky thread" there (as it was on 15/20 forums it is one, to the tune of 200,000++ views in 1 yr.'s time as well as often being rated "5/5 stars", & being the most viewed on forums that have been around for years to a decade++, in that short time frame also)...
The tips/tricks/techniqes there can be used on most any kind of malware to neutralize it, with tools you own already &/or completely free ones... I note that because unlike you? I am offering help via that set of techniques.
APK
P.S.=> TOO easy... &, where's your PhD in English to show you have enough mastery of said language to be even beginning to have the right to criticize others? You have no proof of mastery of writing english yourself, so all your b.s. is just mere opinion (from a wannabe English Prof., operating under his "delusions of grandeur", lol)... apk
-
Re:Have you been multiply published in this field?
"You actually got paid for your writing?" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @07:25PM (#27026127)
Yes, for an article over @ PC Pitstop -> http://forums.pcpitstop.com/index.php?s=3d49143183b582f277a1847818e9748a&act=SF&f=66&st=0&changefilters=1
And more/others...
(Like by earning royalties for portions of commercial wares ontop of being paid the contract monies to write them up, as well as working as a pro as both a software engineer &/or network admin/engineer for the past 16++ yrs. in this art & science... I carry related degrees as well (dual), but hands-on experience? It's everything really, @ least the really REAL side of this field!)
----
"Amazing" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @07:25PM (#27026127)
Not really (not for someone who actually does this job for a living, not just writing about others who do (there is a difference, & therein lies all the difference!))
----
"you must have a good editor then as your prose reads like shit." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @07:25PM (#27026127)
Ahem: Care to show us the proof of you PhD in English? You know - the one you do NOT have?
Otherwise?
Opinions vary...
Like this guide I authored this year to show others how to secure their PC's has gone over 200,000++ views in less than 1 yr.'s time & been rated "5/5 stars", been made an "Essential Guide", & has been in their MOST viewed in that short timeframe (with some sites up for years, well travelled ones) etc. et al...
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "Fun-To-Do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=858deff62a2ecd16236c122ab283487f&showtopic=2662
(There as an ESSENTIAL GUIDE, & 34,000 views in less than 1 yr.'s time iirc... & it's the same on 15/20 forums it is featured on.)
----
As well as the 1++ yr. virus/spyware/malware/rootkit free results experience on their computers that others like THRONKA here (no noob, a pro) & his family + paying clients have been enjoying because of applying its points (nothing like "Word-of-Mouth" after all):
----
So... Take a read, learn something, so you can contribute here on a TECHNICAL level, & help!
I.E.-> Instead of acting like you are, why not help us all find out why 0 has been removed as a valid blocking IP address in HOSTS files for VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 (most likely as well on the latter), because 0 (Zero) is more efficient than 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 by far in terms of load/unload speed from file, AND, consumes less RAM upon loading into the local DNS cache...
That's in addition to discussing this:
Port Filtering being removed is another mistake... it works @ a diff. level of the IP stack drivers-wise than IPSec &/or Software Firewalls do for instance, which aids in layered security since they all work @ diff. levels of the IP stack (thus, you can't take 1 out, & take them ALL out - & it works like putting deadbolts, chain locks, & door handle locks onto a car or home, same idea - layered security: break one, another's STILL in the way (&, what's one of the 1st things spywares/viruses/malwares/rootkits do? DISABLE FIREWALLS + ANTIVIRUS, etc. et al)...
Doing more with less is good engineering, not bloat, & that's what the 0 blocking IP address gives a user of a
-
Re:Some good, lots bad.
They all work for layered security just fine... & in simultaneous operation, unobtrusively/transparently (IF you know what you're doing, & it's NOT hard really).
Just so you know, & in case you don't... I.E.-> In combination, & especially because they work @ diff. levels of the IP stack (covered in detail w/ backing documentation from MS in the URL below in case you need detail)?
They're good for the concept of "Layered Security" - IF you haven't heard of that, you may wish to read up.
(No sarcasm intended, it's great stuff & works.)
Fact is, using that concept? I wrote up this guide online on 20 or so forums, in the URL below:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond)...:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=af8f8f41f8cdcaf0d7b25cb482b4b7f4&showtopic=2662
----
Now it's @ the tune of 200,000++ views strong across them, & at 15/20 sites it's been made an "ESSENTIAL GUIDE", & has people who are now running 1++ yr. now, virus/spyware/malware/rootkit free, & testify to it (not noobies either, but pros, their families, and paying clients)
Additionally, in this art & science, I've appeared in these publications for softwares (even parts of commercially sold successful ones) over time:
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
----
That's so you know I'm not just some noob filling your head with b.s. & all that...
APK
P.S.=> All I would like is answer to why HOSTS files being able to use a superior 0 blocking address (smaller & faster than 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) has been removed from VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 - AND - to discuss views on why PORT FILTERING has had its GUI front for it removed from they as well, because it works @ a diff. level of the IP stack drivers-wise than Software Firewalls or IPSec do, it aids layered security (because if one gets knocked down, the others working @ diff. levels are still in the way - just like using deadbolts + chainlocks + door handle locks & alarms to secure things like homes)... apk
-
Have you been multiply published in this field?
he's an idiot because he can't set up a proper network firewall/dns server. - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @04:37PM (#27025251)
Ever heard of "layered security"? If not, do... I practice it.
Clue: I have all the firewalling in the world in multiple layers, with a LOT more...
Take a read here:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond)...:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=af8f8f41f8cdcaf0d7b25cb482b4b7f4&showtopic=2662
----
It works, + I wrote it...
( & is a guide all over the internet about it, rated highly + even earned me some pay for writing it up.)
And, on 15 of the 20 sites it is featured @ online it is an "Essential Guide" Sticky Type post, & the remaining others have it "5/5 stars", most viewed, etc. et al...
Additionally in this art & science??
I have been featured in these publications in this field:
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, but by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
----
SO, that all "said & aside"?
Have you done the same I wonder??
If not, & I am guessing probably not???
Well, lol, I wonder who folks here are going to think is an idiot here (as you called me) in this field???
----
BOTTOM-LINE, for my usepatterns on a PC here @ home?Well - Why should I waste CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O on running a DNS server that can be poisoned, &/or may be susceptible, AND that I clearly plainly do not need here locally, + I don't need AD either (has heavy DNS dependencies)...
(BY the by - & I do use DNS servers, external ones, & best in the business (as far as DNS servers external to my home here), in OpenDNS!)
Most of all why run a local DNS server, when this is for myself here on a workstation system anyhow which is a single standalone system connected to a NAT firewalling LinkSys router?
APK
P.S.=> Name tossing's not really helping your cause much either... I mean, this post's been modded up here +2 already, so, I am happy with that, but I would be moreso if I got a solid technical answer, & especially in regards to why the 0 was removed as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file.... apk
-
Re:36 new features, huh? 2 security items pulled
"just set up a DNS server with those entries in it." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, @12:37PM (#27014013)
First of all: Why run something I do NOT need here? I have no AD network @ home currently, nor do I require the use of a local DNS server here - for how I use the internet @ home, that'd be an illogical WASTE of CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O!
Also - DNS servers have KNOWN vulnerabilities in them is why...
Dan Kaminsky ring a bell?
When I use utilize DNS servers though (&, I do, still even w/ a HOSTS file (of course))? I use the 'best in the business', in OpenDNS...
NOW - IF that's NOT enough, I can produce a lot more data that seconds that as well as pointing out more possibles why reliance on DNS servers is NOT always good medicine, such as the fact that DNS servers can be "poisoned"... for example!
(&, if my DNS server doesn't have an address I need in it, URL resolved-wise to its IP address?? I'm NOT going to be able to get to said website, w/ out a HOSTS file 'hardcoding' of the URL-to-IP equation for that website to do it for me)
Fact is?
That brings up a point that is another benefit of HOSTS files usage - using a HOSTS file hardcode to a website via entering its URL-to-IP address equation in it for said site CAN substantially speed up access to that site, by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!
(E.G.-> Ping a website, you usually see 30-60ms return times from DNS servers... it's yet ANOTHER flexible use of them, this time not for security, but rather for superior performance!)
NOW - By contrast/way of comparison?
Determining a site from a LOCAL HOSTS FILE? 0ms return of URL-to-IP address resolutions will show, & via the same ping test I noted others to try above...
30-60 fold increases in speed manifest & evidence themselves, thus, right there, that you can realize & SEE the speed gains possible thus!
(DO try this, even if just as an experiment that you can use, to try to see my point here... it's an EASY test!)
HOWEVER, though this usage of HOSTS files SOMETIMES requires maintenance, because RARELY usually? Websites DO change HOSTING PROVIDERS, but MOST let you know they are doing so, ahead of time, to account for this (& it's NO big deal using notepad.exe, ping IF needed, & I have it RIGHT again - trivial, IF you can read english, that is))...
----
"Dude, a piece of advice: Quit the raging" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, @12:37PM (#27014013)
Secondly: Who's raging? I'm not the one libelling others, I am only responding to those types of folks here, in kind (when in ROME, do as the ROMANS DO, as apparently? It is the ONLY language they understand!)...
Hey - IF anything, I'm getting my usual "entertainment" from putting the "naysayers" (@ least ones w/ no technicals in their b.s. replies that is), in their place, easily... lol!
APK
P.S.=> LASTLY: In fact, read Oliver Day's article I posted from SECURITYFOCUS -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 in my 1st post (he hit upon MOST everything I extolled years before, here -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=755f63904e378882b75dfdf8b1356087&showtopic=2662 in regards to HOSTS files' role in "layered security", & FAR more)... apk
-
Block scripting in Adobe Acrobat Reader instead...
"Blocking scripts isn't guaranteed to protect you from this kind of attack - by Phroggy (441) on Tuesday February 24, @11:39PM (#26978685) Homepage
Correction: It is - but, it depends on WHERE (what app, specifically here) you blocking scripting @!
(AND, in this case? It's better to do in Adobe Acrobat Reader, itself, vs. your webbrowsers in this case)
SO... how to do that?
See here, 1st post @ the top of this page:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond):
----
SALIENT QUOTE/EXCERPT/DETAILS etc. et al:
(HOW TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT USAGE IN ADOBE ACROBAT READER)
1.) Use Adobe Acrobat's EDIT menu
2.) PREFERENCES submenu
3.) Javascript section (in left-hand side column of options)
4.) & uncheck "Enable Acrobat Javascript" in the right-hand side option for that.
----
THUS - By disabling scripting in Adobe Acrobat Reader, of most ANY (@ least recent) versions of it (&, I KNOW that versions 8 & 9 allow this, @ least)? You stall this type of attack, easily...
( &, no "chancing it" by ONLY using NoScript's DEFAULTS (which are NOT as "stringent" as it CAN be) or other means in a browser alone (though, layering those methods ontop of this one cannot hurt)).
----
IMPORTANT NOTE/EDITING MY ORIGINAL POST I INTENDED TO PUT UP W/ SAID "WORK-AROUND" METHOD I PUT UP ABOVE:
There IS a "home brewed patch" out there now, developed by a 3rd party via a HACKED DLL (filename -> AcroRdv9-Patch.zip -> http://www.snort.org/vrt/tools/AcroRdv9-Patch.zip ), for Adobe Acrobat 9 ONLY, but... he's also NOT guaranteeing it vs. other variants of THIS type of attack (run by Adobe's javascripting engines in Acrobat Reader), NOR, in earlier versions of Adobe Acrobat!
HOWEVER - the method I am extolling?
I, however/conversely, DO guarantee it works!
(AND, should even w/ Adobe Acrobat Reader Browser plugins/addons if any, assuming they too, utilize said
Simply too, via the method noted above, & on THIS & other variants of this nature of attack (that exploit faults in Adobe Acrobat's native internal javascript parsing + processing methods) in this application, even in older models that support disabling of javascripting in Acrobat's
STILL, the "ideal" thing to HOPE & wait for? A patch from Adobe, of course... not workarounds like this.
APK
P.S.=> See, it's ONLY that I had the benefit/advantage of seeing this one coming a LONG time ago (more than a year ago @ least), as well as attacks being used via Adobe Acrobat Reader in the past (like many of you no doubt ALSO have) before this instance of it happening...
(& thus, I put up a SIMPLE method for anybody to utilize, in HOW to stall it @ THE SOURCE, above, more than 1 yr. ago wherever I posted that guide online in late 2007...)
AND, guys? IT WORKS, because "IF YOU CANNOT GO INTO THE scripted KITCHEN, YOU CANNOT GET BURNED" type thinking... apk
-
Re:Who would upgrade a perfectly working OS?
"Why would anyone even remotely consider the expense and hassle to move from XP to Vista or XP to W7? You would have to be a complete idiot. I can see new systems arriving with W7 though." - by InsaneProcessor (869563) on Tuesday February 24, @05:41PM (#26976003)
TOTALLY agreed... I've been running Windows Server 2003 since it came out & haven't looked back - why?
NO NEED!
In fact, recently @ a forums I was attending? The "relative noobs" there began 'busting on me', saying I was "afraid to change" etc. et al... fine. I just realize that they're still in the "techie" phase, & they HAVE to experiment more w/ the new stuff (only problem is, NOT MANY FOLKS or corporate bodies opted for VISTA vs. XP, unless they received brand-new rigs), hoping it "takes", so they can profit by its very nature of being NEW & DIFFERENT (where many folks WILL need help on it, because VISTA is very different interface-wise, in many ways vs. older models of Windows).
(That's speaking from a typical desktop home user's viewpoint @ least - "IF I HAVE A WATCH THAT RUNS, WHY BOTHER GET A NEW ONE" type of thinking!)
Same on the business front really - that is, unless some MAJORLY compelling reason makes corporate folks want to take down perfectly running servers on Windows Server 2003 for example (& those are the kinds that have done well, for instance, @ NASDAQ - where Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 have been shown to get that fabled "99.999% 5-9's uptime" rating, 24x7 for years)...
APK
P.S.=> IF Windows 7 turns out as NICE as the hype makes it out to be? I just MAY finally upgrade... but, afaik? It's NOT showing any truly "massive" performance gains for most folks like end-users (however, iirc? There have been some shown in file transfers in Windows Server 2008 & thus, also Windows 7, vs. older models of Windows for INTRANET environs (don't quote me on that, it may also be over the public internet too on this note)) or even security ones (because you CAN secure Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, very well, per this -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=5216895b40746a34aeedf294f336a8fe&showtopic=2662 )... apk
-
Re:Microsoft is responsible
"I don't think that Windows users shouldn't have an OS that's as easy to secure (and use in a secure way) as you and I do" - by techno-vampire (666512) on Thursday February 12, @06:52PM (#26836465) Homepage
Well - They do!
(Via this guide's steps (as secure as ANY OS out there,vs. their normal defaults for security, & moreso (because it goes FAR beyond that))):
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=f0f5e540681f94ffd2e994dfa2c55f08&showtopic=2662
----
1-2 hrs. of work on the reader's part, for YEARS of stable, secure & FASTER uptime...
APK
P.S.=> See here, specifically "THRONKA"'s replies/results there for a reference, as to how effective this guide is, in securing a Windows based PC. Just for some "success stories" using its steps:
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430&page=3
(A typical user's machines (&, also his CLIENTS' MACHINES also running 1++ yr. now so far) & all, malware free, after applying the steps from the guide in the URL above)... apk
-
Re:Meep Beep! STOP THIS WORM EASILY
"I for one am sick and tired of ignorant computer users getting their machines botnetted, blissfully unaware of the harm they are then contributing to. (and many of them are aware and just plain don't care)" - by v1 (525388) on Friday February 20, @08:10PM (#26937367) Homepage
So was I, because professionally, it has eaten up a GOOD 80%++ or more of my days on the job with clients in cleansing their rigs of this madness-N-lunacy... so, I decided to put this around on the wire on 20 sites or so last year (for my "New Year's Resolution" of "DO A GOOD DEED")... &, it's done EXTREMELY well, especially vs. machinations like this new worm:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance, & beyond:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e692b654cf47859bebf9e4380bec3a03&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com] [tcmagazine.com] [tcmagazine.com]
----
E.G. (per said article's points for securing a Windows based OS) ->:
----
A.) IF you just simply "smarten up", & disable the SERVER service, which MOST folks w/ a single home system & no LAN around do NOT even need to have running in that case (which this worm exploits a bug in), because you generally don't NEED it (as an end-user on a single machine online via the internet only & NO home or work LAN/WAN connectivity needed sharing files/folders/disks/printers etc.), thus, merely WASTING excess CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O server service needs (for sharing files/folders/printers etc. et al), for 1 thing
&
B.) Then watch it with javascript usage in your webbrowsers (meaning do NOT use it on "every site online under the sun", & ONLY on the sites you absolutely NEED javascript active for, for proper full function?
----
You CAN stay clean, & uninfected... &, even vs. THIS particular worm & its variants...
It's the fault of Microsoft for shipping OS in such a relatively unsecured state (&, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, because tools like SCW (server configuration wizard) exist in MS Windows variants, such as Windows Server 2003 for example, & it OUGHT to be run right after setup is completing... but, it's not, for example), &, the fault of the misguided fools that create these machinations...
I will say 1 thing in defense of the people that create malware in general (as I call it) - they ARE pointing out FUNDAMENTAL flaws that exist in default OS setups, but, that's about it, because their talents COULD be put to use elsewhere... but, as far as saying they are "talented" in this "art & science"?
Hey - ANYONE can be bogus & destructive: It's "TOO EASY"... quite another to be creative for useful things, vs. creating virus & such, no questions asked...
APK
P.S.=>
"Do the world a favor. MAKE them care." - by v1 (525388) on Friday February 20, @08:10PM (#26937367) Homepage
Ah, "therein lies the rub"... lol!
Well, I agree, but... I don't *THINK* you can "make people care", until it strikes them personally... but, sooner or later, it usually does, costing them time, money, + aggravation to NO end - & IF folks don't get wind of this kind of info., or worse, don't care enough to APPLY it themselves (or, have a fairly computer + networking saavy person do it FOR them instead)? They keep guys who are in this field, PAID... sometimes?
Sometimes, I suspect it's actually guys in this field who are @ the heart of all this, because of my last statement - it creates a self-serving economy for them to profit by... how sad, IF I am correct on this note - but, face it: You cannot go "just whipping this stuff up", because yes, even MALWARES take some work to create + implement (thus, one HAS to assume they are pros, or were, @ some point in this field OR could be to some extent)... apk
-
Re:Where is the real infection info? HOW TO STOPIT
Hey, don't want this "Conficker" worm in your systems (patched OR unpatched even)?
Simple : Because it's relatively EASY to stall these "botmasters" (destructive script kiddies is more like it) from doing that... via VERY simple measures no less!
(Simply IF you can read english & apply what is noted here to secure yourself (1-2 hrs. of work for YEARS of uptime, stability, & bugfree operation)):
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance, & beyond:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e692b654cf47859bebf9e4380bec3a03&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com] [tcmagazine.com]
----
E.G. (per said article's points for securing a Windows based OS) ->:
A.) IF you just simply "smarten up", & disable the SERVER service, which MOST folks w/ a single home system & no LAN around do NOT even need (which this worm exploits a bug in), because you generally (as an end-user on a single machine online via the internet only & NO home or work LAN/WAN connectivity needed) to waste CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O server service needs (for sharing files/folders/printers etc. et al), for 1 thing
&
B.) Then watch it with javascript usage in your webbrowsers (meaning do NOT use it on "every site online under the sun", & ONLY on the sites you absolutely NEED javascript active for, for proper full function?
You CAN stay clean, & uninfected... &, even vs. THIS particular worm & its variants...
APK
P.S.=> It's the fault of Microsoft for shipping OS in such a relatively unsecured state (&, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, because tools like SCW (server configuration wizard) exist in MS Windows variants, such as Windows Server 2003 for example, & it OUGHT to be run right after setup is completing... but, it's not, for example), &, the fault of the misguided fools that create these machinations...
I will say 1 thing in defense of the people that create malware in general (as I call it) - they ARE pointing out FUNDAMENTAL flaws that exist in default OS setups, but, that's about it, because their talents COULD be put to use elsewhere... but, as far as saying they are "talented" in this "art & science"?
Hey - ANYONE can be bogus & destructive: It's "TOO EASY"... quite another to be creative for useful things, vs. creating virus & such, no questions asked... apk
-
Stop SERVER service (for standalones) & javasc
Hey, don't want this in your systems?
Well - it's relatively EASY to stall these "botmasters" (destructive script kiddies is more like it) from doing that... via VERY simple measures no less!
(Simply IF you can read english & apply what is noted here to secure yourself (1-2 hrs. of work for YEARS of uptime, stability, & bugfree operation)):
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance, & beyond:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e692b654cf47859bebf9e4380bec3a03&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]
----
E.G. (per said article's points for securing a Windows based OS) ->:
A.) IF you just simply "smarten up", & disable the SERVER service, which MOST folks w/ a single home system & no LAN around do NOT even need (which this worm exploits a bug in), because you generally (as an end-user on a single machine online via the internet only & NO home or work LAN/WAN connectivity needed) to waste CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O server service needs (for sharing files/folders/printers etc. et al), for 1 thing
&
B.) Then watch it with javascript usage in your webbrowsers (meaning do NOT use it on "every site online under the sun", & ONLY on the sites you absolutely NEED javascript active for, for proper full function?
You CAN stay clean, & uninfected... &, even vs. THIS particular worm & its variants...
APK
P.S.=> It's the fault of Microsoft for shipping OS in such a relatively unsecured state (&, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, because tools like SCW (server configuration wizard) exist in MS Windows variants, such as Windows Server 2003 for example, & it OUGHT to be run right after setup is completing... but, it's not, for example), &, the fault of the misguided fools that create these machinations...
I will say 1 thing in defense of the people that create malware in general (as I call it) - they ARE pointing out FUNDAMENTAL flaws that exist in default OS setups, but, that's about it, because their talents COULD be put to use elsewhere... but, as far as saying they are "talented" in this "art & science"?
Hey - ANYONE can be bogus & destructive: It's "TOO EASY"... quite another to be creative for useful things, vs. creating virus & such, no questions asked... apk
-
Don't want to be hit by this worm? Take a read
"In short bot herders can now push updates to infected machines rather than relying on the infected machine to seek out and download updates." - by InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) on Friday February 20, @07:33PM (#26937071)
In short?
Hey, it's also relatively EASY to stall these "botmasters" (destructive script kiddies is more like it) from doing that... via VERY simple measures no less!
(Simply IF you can read english & apply what is noted here to secure yourself (1-2 hrs. of work for YEARS of uptime, stability, & bugfree operation)):
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e692b654cf47859bebf9e4380bec3a03&showtopic=2662
----
E.G. (per said article's points for securing a Windows based OS) ->:
A.) IF you just simply "smarten up", & disable the SERVER service, which MOST folks w/ a single home system & no LAN around do NOT even need (which this worm exploits a bug in), because you generally (as an end-user on a single machine online via the internet only & NO home or work LAN/WAN connectivity needed) for 1 thing
&
B.) Then watch it with javascript usage in your webbrowsers (meaning do NOT use it on "every site online under the sun", & ONLY on the sites you absolutely NEED javascript active for, for proper full function?
You CAN stay clean, & uninfected... &, even vs. THIS particular worm & its variants...
APK
P.S.=> It's the fault of Microsoft for shipping OS in such a relatively unsecured state (&, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, because tools like SCW (server configuration wizard) exist in MS Windows variants, such as Windows Server 2003 for example, & it OUGHT to be run right after setup is completing... but, it's not, for example), &, the fault of the misguided fools that create these machinations...
HOWEVER: I will say 1 thing in defense of the people that create malware in general (as I call it) - they ARE pointing out FUNDAMENTAL flaws that exist in default OS setups, but, that's about it, because their talents COULD be put to use elsewhere... but, as far as saying they are "talented" in this "art & science"?
Hey - ANYONE can be bogus & destructive: It's "TOO EASY"... quite another to be creative for useful things, vs. creating virus & such... apk
-
Re:This is you on windows
"Oh, I KNOW Windows loves me" - by Chris Tucker (302549) on Friday February 20, @07:50PM (#26937217) Homepage
It does, because it does ME, & I have yet to be infected/infested for decades online now...
You can have the same results, simply IF you can read english & apply what is noted here to secure yourself (1-2 hrs. of work for YEARS of uptime, stability, & bugfree operation):
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e692b654cf47859bebf9e4380bec3a03&showtopic=2662
----
"All the abuse is my fault. I deserve it!" - by Chris Tucker (302549) on Friday February 20, @07:50PM (#26937217) Homepage
It's the fault of Microsoft for shipping OS in such a relatively unsecured state (&, it doesn't HAVE to be that way, because tools like SCW (server configuration wizard) exist in MS Windows variants, such as Windows Server 2003 for example, & it OUGHT to be run right after setup is completing... but, it's not, for example), &, the fault of the misguided fools that create these machinations...
I will say 1 thing in defense of the people that create malware in general (as I call it) - they ARE pointing out FUNDAMENTAL flaws that exist in default OS setups, but, that's about it, because their talents COULD be put to use elsewhere... but, as far as saying they are "talented" in this "art & science"?
Hey - ANYONE can be bogus & destructive: It's "TOO EASY"... quite another to be creative for useful things, vs. creating virus & such!
Anyhow/anyways:
NOW - IF you just "smarten up", & disable the SERVER service (which this worm exploits a bug in), because you generally (as an end-user on a single machine online via the internet only & NO home or work LAN/WAN connectivity needed) for 1 thing, & then watch it with javascript usage in your webbrowsers (meaning do NOT use it on "every site online under the sun", & ONLY on the sites you absolutely NEED javascript active for, for proper full function?
You CAN stay clean, & uninfected... &, even vs. THIS particular worm & its variants...
APK
-
Re:Use process explorer
That's all been listed for years here in the URL below, in how it's done, and why with Process Explorer:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=6b183f6b8a371704b663f6da04577221&showtopic=2662&st=0#
Pertinent excerpt:
"It's THAT, or using Process Explorer in UserMode/Ring 3/RPL3 operation...
You would do a suspending the calling process via right click popup menu options for this it offers! Once the calling process is suspended (& many times, also the called or DLL injected library as well), you can delete ANY potential offending injected DLL/lib virus-trojan-spyware-malware being called by said parent process, on disk.
(This ia assuming this is a lib loaded virus/spyware/trojan/malware etc., not a standalone
That's done via watching loaded DLL's that ANY app may have loaded presently (For that, you would have to use ProExp's CTRL+D keystroke shortcut, with the lower pane view present/visible, & set like that) IF there is one and this thing doesn't launch by itself from one of the registry RUN areas or startup groups that is..."
-
Re:Hostile Action from Spammers
"Windows can be found on the vast, vast majority of computers and Windows has no such security system" - by causality (777677) on Saturday December 27, @05:09PM (#26244549)
That's NOT true: Using tools native to the OS & your other applications? It can be done for free (with 100% free tools ontop of Windows own native facilities for this):
I.E.-> Windows can be set up SECURELY, & with its own native toolset for security (alongside freebie tools) for those who are not security inclined with about 1-2 hours of work.
E.G.-> I used this guide in the URL below to set up and secure both my Mom & niece's PCs, THIS way:
-----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e421e4d42f9df180374ee6028cd8339c&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]
-----
(As well as 100's of paying clients the past 1-2 yrs. now also)
And it works (No viruses, trojans, spywares, rootkits, etc. for them (for more than a year now).
----
"Further, no one in the security industry is really interested in providing one because by doing so they would kill their own market. If Microsoft tried to implement something like that, something far more effective and less of a "band-aid" than UAC, they would receive tremendous pressure to desist from an entire industry" - by causality (777677) on Saturday December 27, @05:09PM (#26244549)
Here?
Here you DO have an excellent point: The industry being 'killed' would be that of those who remove malwares in general from client's systems, daily... in other words??
Support techs...
(They're the LAST ones who want to see Windows secured, due to their "raison d'etre" being largely cleaning out such malwares from said client's who call on them for help in these situations, daily...)
I.E.-> It's the exact same reason you don't see the drug trade being slowed down by taking down the drug producing nations like Columbia - it'd put 1,000's of law enforcement folks out of a job!
APK
-
Re:Linux of Mac
"Really, do not install Windows for your older parents. They will just get in trouble with it" - by robinjo (15698) on Wednesday December 24, @05:47AM (#26221527)
That's not true. Windows can be set up for those who are not security inclined with about 1-2 hours of work.
I used this guide to set up and secure both my Mom & niece's PCs, THIS way:
-----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e421e4d42f9df180374ee6028cd8339c&showtopic=2662
-----
And it works (No viruses, trojans, spywares, rootkits, etc. for them, for more than a year now).
-
Mine's clean, here is how
See subject-line, & the URL below...
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & yes, even VISTA: Plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Security Benchmark Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=3c2f2f607967bc4818b28f0d7fad17d1&showtopic=2662
----
It works, & for roughly a 2 hr. investment of your time, for years of safer uptime online on the internet, & for years into the distance... Windows is easily secured using the CIS Tool multiplatform benchmark-gauge of security, & was highly noted by COMPUTERWORLD, no less, plus the other points noted in that guide, for the concept of "layered security".
(And, it's not just for Windows either guys, also for MANY *NIX variants also)
CIS Tool almost makes it fun, & especially if you're the type of computer user that likes benchmarks for performance, this is for you. Albeit, it's oriented around security testing is all.
-
Questions, some disagreement, but, mostly OK! apk
"Linux and Unix systems in general have a better underlying security model than Windows (e.g., the way root/administrator vs. user is handled)" - by wintermute42 (710554) on Tuesday November 18, @04:31PM (#25808541) Homepage
Oh, really? What about the superiority of Windows NT-based OS' File & Registry ACL (access control levels) vs. that on *NIX's?? It's a LOT more "Fine-grained" than std. chmod & MAC is typically on say, Linux, afaik & have seen + heard.
----
Others thru this posting have inquired on "how to test this"... well, other than just "putting it out there in the wild" (the TRUE test)?
I have seen even SeLinux bearing distros not score any better than Windows does, on a multiplatform benchmark gauge of security called CIS Tool:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=4ad70ddfdb4f08b066be1713666c0a6f&showtopic=2662
----
See there, & please - Note the 46/100 scores that BOTH an SeLinux bearing distro (SuSE) & Windows Server 2003 get? Both needed work!
(AND - Windows XP scores better than I was able to do on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully hotfix patched @ 86/100 pictured there), & XP went into the 91/100 range just as SeLinux SuSE did (albeit, Linux only did that, even that SeLinux bearing distro, ONLY AFTER "SECURITY-HARDENING IT", based on CIS Tool advise... that was data from Bert64, a member here no less, on the *NIX photos there)...
Sure: "Apples to Oranges" comparison, in the CIS Tool being used upon BOTH *NIX variants & Windows but... the point is there. Neither IS "bulletproof & bugfree" nor perfectly secured, outta-the-box/oem stock! Heck, FAR from it...
----
"Unix architectures also had years of students attacking them (back before this was a serious crime)." - by wintermute42 (710554) on Tuesday November 18, @04:31PM (#25808541) Homepage
And, Windows has had the past decade & 1/2++ worth of the PLANETS' hacker/cracker types going after it...
----
"However, if those of us who are Linux fans are honest we know that the reason we don't have to worry as much about Linux attacks is that hackers target Windows because it is more pervasive" - by wintermute42 (710554) on Tuesday November 18, @04:31PM (#25808541) Homepage
Ah, @ last: Something WE BOTH CAN AGREE UPON, from your statements! I agree here completely... since Windows IS the most used OS there is, from the home end user desktop, up thru departmental workstations & departmental servers, & clear into the "MISSION CRITICAL/ENTERPRISE CLASS" server level of usage??
90% of the world's computers using Windows NT-based OS makes one HELL of a large target, from a single codebase, @ least as far as malware makers + hacker/cracker & botnet types are concerned... I'd do the same, were I "into that game" (I'm on the exact opposite side in fact)...
APK
P.S.=>
"The idea that you can just label a system as secure seems questionable. You always get attacked via means that you didn't expect. What they're really saying is that the system implements a security model that they believe to be secure. But B1 bombers are not placed on the Internet protecting large amounts of money, so they are unlikely to attract hackers." - by wintermute42 (710554) on Tuesday November 18, @04:31PM (#25808541) Homepage
Agreed, 110%, & WELL said... apk
-
A Good Windows Security Guide (online)
Whoever modded you funny must think they are clever. It appeared to me that you asked an honest question. Here is the best answer I can give you (2 hrs. of your time, tops, for years of stable and faster uptime for years into the distance, by following a guide, an automated tool for security of PC/Server evaluation from a free and reputable security audit tool, some registry hacks (automated via
A good overall security guide is here:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]
It shows you how to config NTLMv2 for instance to be 'proofed' vs. this form of attack this thread on this website is noting today, and the techniques been known for the better part of a decade.
If you are a standalone machine (single machine not on a LAN at home or LAN/WAN on the job for instance on a network there) it goes into far more that is effective vs. this, and other attacks possible on a Windows NT-based OS.
By following both the CIS Tool and this guide's points, You also go faster online as a bonus ontop of being far more secure (91/100 on Windows XP, and 86/100 on Windows Server 2003 scores are quantified for viewers from CIS Tool evaluation (a multiplatform benchmark of security based on industry best practices for securing PC's and Servers that was well noted by sources such as COMPUTERWORLD)).
-
NTLMv2 configuration change stops it and more does
A good overall security guide is here:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2662
It shows you how to config NTLMv2 for instance to be 'proofed' vs. this form of attack this thread on this website is noting today, and the techniques been known for the better part of a decade.
If you are a standalone machine (single machine not on a LAN at home or LAN/WAN on the job for instance on a network there) it goes into far more that is effective vs. this, and other attacks possible on a Windows NT-based OS.
By following both the CIS Tool and this guide's points, You also go faster online as a bonus ontop of being far more secure (91/100 on Windows XP, and 86/100 on Windows Server 2003 scores are quantified for viewers from CIS Tool evaluation (a multiplatform benchmark of security based on industry best practices for securing PC's and Servers that was well noted by sources such as COMPUTERWORLD)).
-
CUSTOM HOSTS ARE ANOTHER (Good Combo)
Custom HOSTS files are more comprehensive, for one thing, and multiapplication as well as multiplatform for TCPIP.
(They are more comprehensive, in that you blockout bad sites before you can even be stricken by them, and if you can't go into the kitchen, you can't get burned because they cover more than just a single webbrowser, as in the case of NoScript (not a bad thing to have installed in FireFox though, I use it myself, in combination with WOT, FlashBlock, AdBlock Plus, & Perspectives
Other browsers (all) like Opera &/or IE are even covered, along with email programs (really, any app that accesses the world-wide web, in fact).
A good custom HOSTS file is featured here and has a good writeup on how to use them as well as maintain them and why:
http://ashentech.com/index.php?topic=1391.msg11023#msg11023
It has a large HOSTS file attached there, updated today in fact (as to known reputable lists as regards known malware or malscript serving websites to block out) from:
STOPBADWARE.ORG
SPYBOT SEARCH AND DESTROY
DANCHO DANCHEV ZDNET SECURITY BLOG
HOSTS FILES FEATURED AT WIKIPEDIA(All those sources, merged into 1 large 12mb sized HOSTS file (DNS Client service must be stopped to use it, & that saves CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O since you don't really need it on a single machine connected to the internet), updated regularly each week, fully alphabetized inside and repeat entries removed).
Open it in a text editor like notepad.exe and you will see it is all business, and to the point. Not much in the way of this custom HOSTS file having documentation in it but the URL above provides that as to how to use it for the most part.
The file also speeds you up (beyond its showing you how to speed up access to your favorite websites inside of it, by avoiding DNS calls alone and more or less acting as your own DNS server yourself, via the HOSTS file and possibly some registry hacks to 4 small entries that is very easy to do and the URL above gives accurate directions on how to do so and with the tools you need regedit.exe).
This HOSTS file does so, by blocking out every known adbanner server out there (and by not 'streaming in' yet more unneeded data from other servers for adbanners, as well as running their code burning CPU cycles on it (code that mind you may be compromised and house viruses and spywares, this has been happening the past 3 or 4 years now)) as well as secures you from reliable reputable sources, noted above.
Custom HOSTS files, while in combination with tools like:
NoScript in FireFox (only this browser unfortunately)
Opera's native ability to turn off javascript globally (and make exceptions by site no less via rightclicks on website pages)
Internet Options for IE (turn off javascript)These, along with a good HOSTS file is an excellent start for an internet defense vs. infestors/infectors.
Supplement HOSTS & the tools noted above, and these:
A good software Firewall program (on that caps both inbound and outbound and notifies you of outbound calls especially)
A good hardware NAT true stateful packet inspecting "firewalling" router
Port filtering
Keeping your OS and apps + drivers patchedDo these things & use those tools, and, you have a better than not chance of staying safe online, if not never infected or compromised, and going faster online as well for a bonus - that's fairly certain.
There is more you need to do, so as hack registry and other configuration files, for really strong security online, but this setup noted is a decent start at least and very easy to implement.
A good overall security guide is here:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
-
Re:Miserable Retards
"I can't remember which version it originally showed up in, but when I saw the checkbox for JavaScript in Acrobat Reader, my jaw hit the floor.
"Are you people fscking morons? Did you learn nothing from the exploits and problems caused by JavaScript in Web browsers? Hell, forget Web browsers; Microsoft Word became a virus/trojan platform because the Special-Needs Children who apparently design all their software thought it would be tEh k00l to embed macros in what is fundamentally a static document."" - by ewhac (5844) on Thursday November 06, @02:15AM (#25657293) Homepage
Which is why I have been recommending that folks turn off javascript in Adobe Acrobat Reader here:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
----
On that page of that guide, specifically? It shows other exploits in the past taking advantage of this & via the same mechanisms that 95% of today's exploits use in webbrowsers &/or email programs as well: JAVASCRIPT (the "bane of the internet" (yes, it can be useful, but it is also a 'double-edged sword' that can work against you & anyone looking over @ SECUNIA.COM or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can easily verify this statement of mine, as for the past 1-4 yrs. now or so, 95% of the attacks out there today use javascript to do their dirty deeds...)
====
"This is not an honest mistake. This is negligent engineering, and someone needs to lose a lot of money over it before the lesson sinks in." - by ewhac (5844) on Thursday November 06, @02:15AM (#25657293) Homepage
Agreed... today's browser makers speeding up javascript processing, prior to securing it is, also - they're only speeding up how fast you can be infected via javascript misuse really is why I state that. Facts (such as the infection vector used in 95% of today's attacks online use javascript after all, & just going to SECUNIA.COM &/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anyhow, that much, easily... to bear my statement out as fact, I recommend anyone do so in fact!)
Personally?
As far as webbrowsers &/or email programs go??
It boggles the MIND that devs of those tools haven't yelled to high heck about the vulnerable/weak DOM behind javascript, because of all the exploits being put on others via its usage on "every site under the sun a user goes to". They should default it to off, & when a user needs it?? Websites usually let them know to turn it on, anyhow. I only use javascript on banking &/or shopping (commerce) sites online, where it IS needed + required mostly & that is it - I also have not been infected/infested by any form of malware because of it (& other points in the guide above) in more than 15 yrs. online now.
Not too long ago here, when devs were discussing scripting? I noted this & was modded down for it (wtf?) here:
& all I was doing was telling the truth + how it is... but, also, how to stay safe vs. it, there... blew my mind, being "modded down" for just telling the truth & also for telling others how to stay safe(r) vs. its misuse.
You also get another "bonus" (for speed this time) in turning off javascript usage in webbrowsers (not just for security) - more speed, by not processing its scripts & also loading in data from yet more servers to do so (as in the case of adbanners, which also have been attack mec
-
You brought it on yourself: Drink in & digest
"Now I'm arguing with a famous anonymous coward" - by symbolset (646467) on Tuesday November 04, @02:14PM (#25629861)
Famous? Thanks!
I just tend to think of myself more like "I can get the job done, & others have noticed it in noted publications in this field/art & science, numerous times, over a decade"... this IS all. I can easily & did prove that much, w/ easily verifiable evidence no less, from the publications it occurred in + dates, pages, etc. et al!
(&, I did that with me only 2-3 yrs. into this field as a pro no less outta academia, when I was into shareware/freeware creation circa 1995-2002, & it took me into commercial products, some of which I still draw royalties from no less)...
Apparently, you cannot do the same, although you like calling others names as you had myself!
Above all else?? This is NO argument - I was accused by yourself falsely, & my own words you skimmed over after you called me names (retarded etc.) proved YOU, wrong, on both points & in both regards. You did this, to yourself, not I.
(& then you turned up a skimmer, & wrong in your accusation that I missed your point on FIXMBR command from the RECOVERY CONSOLE being no good vs. anything BUT bootsector/bootblock originated rootkits &/or viruses, which is true, but the topic of this here on this site? It's ABOUT MBR originated rootkits, thus, you are offtopic!)
BUT, after you called me names (retarded or something like that? I had to show you I did NOT miss your points @ all):
----
"The FIXMBR command is a "sure-fire" way to rid one's self of these kinds of pests & it is the ONLY kind of rootkit you can kill yourself, afaik... other types such as those that are originated via critical system files being infected are unaffected by FIXMBR (memory resident types, in other words)" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04, @12:14PM (#25627505)
----
However, the pity is?
You made some good points, & yes, you were modded up well for it - it is unfortunate your name calling & arrogance was your undoing is all, & you ONLY DID THAT, TO YOURSELF! I never missed the points you accused me of, & YOU KNOW IT, you missed them due to skimming & had the nerve to toss names my way. Pitiful.
----
NOW - I noted you mentioned you have (or, rather supposedly HAD) something along those lines here in the way of a guide... now "disappeared" (yea, ok, it's possible, lol)... I have some of those, that have gone over the tune of 200,000++ views in less than 1 yrs. time in fact online this year (&, their points are proving to be very good for users, in making them literally INVULNERABLE vs. virus/trojans/spyware & even rootkits, IF they practice & adhere to its points & some common-sense):
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=0250759f7432219943d329cae12ddc5e&showtopic=2662
It's even been said to be good stuff, & "modded up" more than a few times, here on slashdot no less by your peers here, see this:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&no_d2=1&cid=25092677
&
To name just a couple... from THIS site in particular. Big nitpickers are here, I cannot afford NOT to put up proofs.
----
Want more proof (as you know, I'm "big on that" because it lend
-
Why "layered security" vs. Security Suites?
Adding onto my last reply (w/ evidences of security suites failing vs. today's threats from reputable security sites who analyzed it)...
"Considering that most people I know don't do much more with their computers then surf the Web, check their email and use some office software, you don't need much more than what I outlined above." - by apathy maybe (922212) on Saturday October 25, @05:47PM (#25512183) Homepage
&
"Firewall blocking all incoming connections / Alternative web browser (not based on MSIE) and email client / Don't download and run random programs (especially not from websites linked to from ads)" - by apathy maybe (922212) on Saturday October 25, @05:47PM (#25512183) Homepage
Those aren't enough... but, your last suggestion is/would be, & here is why + how:
----
"Learn about computer security" - by apathy maybe (922212) on Saturday October 25, @05:47PM (#25512183) Homepage
Absolutely on this point of yours: & more importantly, HOW TO IMPLEMENT LAYERED SECURITY!
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=7f3029e844e2c17eefa57768b1bf1fc0&showtopic=2662
----
Evidence as to WHY the techniques I listed in the URL above (in my last reply) are more effective than just using a firewall, antivirus, &/or antispyware program + patching your OS + programs:
Take a look @ this CURRENT information on SECURITY SUITES failing left & right on tests run, vs. the threats out there, TODAY (not yesteryear tech in them):
----
Top security suites fail exploit tests (COMPUTERWORLD):
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9117042&intsrc=news_ts_head [computerworld.com]
&/or
Top security suites fail exploit tests (SECUNIA):
http://secunia.com/blog/29/ [secunia.com]
----
The "old-school methods" (what security suites use generally - like anti-virus programs using virus detections signatures, which only work vs. KNOWN threats, when they ought to be concentrating on white or blacklisting sites &/or HEURISTICS levels of detection ("smells like a duck, tastes like a duck: IT MUST BE A DUCK!" type logic))
Signatures-based detections aren't working that well nowadays guys, vs. std. viruses... & MOST of what folks get today? They're bad javascript driven (in combination with iframes &/or bad or vulnerable plugins) usage, anyhow. AntiSpyware programs do better here, imo @ least, than antivirus programs do. By far...
After all, you know it, & I know it:
People - out online, today/nowadays?
The REAL, TRUE threat's out there today are coming thru your email, webbrowser, instant messenger programs!
(& even Adobe
The guide's steps in the URL above shows you how to lessen/mitigate that also, with some common-sense rules & tools, & if you can adhere to them?
You can take you
-
How to do "layered security" on Windows
"Considering that most people I know don't do much more with their computers then surf the Web, check their email and use some office software, you don't need much more than what I outlined above." - by apathy maybe (922212) on Saturday October 25, @05:47PM (#25512183) Homepage
I'd have to disagree, just based on the statement of practices that you feel most folks use/do on a PC: Surf the web + check their email!
Those activities ALONE exposes them to the vast majority of what people ARE running into out there online, & that's stuff that is largely JAVASCRIPT driven malware (in combination w/ the use of IFRAMES + vulnerable web browser 3rd party PLUGINS)...
( &, anyone can go to security-oriented websites like SECUNIA.COM &/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM (to name just a couple) & see that what I am stating bears out as true, & for about 3-5 yrs. now online (heck, even adbanners have been shown more than just a few times the past few years now to bear malicious javascript code in them))!
What works vs. that type of thing (javascript driven exploits & the like)?
This guide's steps & suggestions:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=7f3029e844e2c17eefa57768b1bf1fc0&showtopic=2662
----
That guide's broken into 12-14 discrete steps that instruct users on how to do "layered security" on their personal computer!
It uses a highly acclaimed tool that is easy to use (CIS Tool, which reviewed well in COMPUTERWORLD) to help them do so, without having to know a load of Windows' internal structures (like the registry) extremely intimately etc. et al!
(It makes securing a PC via layered security almost "fun-to-do", since it is a benchmark test more-or-less (albeit, not of PC performacne, but instead, of its security setup as it stands on the person running its' tests on his/her system), + it has many points that extend BEYOND those suggested by CIS Tool (which is based on "industry best practices" largely, for PC &/or SERVER class machine security)).
APK
-
Re:Pretty serious NOT FOR STANDALONE RIGS
"In other words: any idiot on your network can gain admin access to any attached Windows-based system with file-sharing enabled" - by IceCreamGuy (904648) on Thursday October 23, @01:39PM (#25484483) Homepage
Well, for a system that is an endpoint node (say, a workstation) on a LAN/WAN (for example, a departmental one, or even larger @ work for instance)?
Sure - This might be a severe risk!
(Although I have had my colleagues TRY to even find my system on our LAN/WAN @ work, & they can't (one of them's a *NIX head & he likes wireshark for this type of thing amongst other tools) - yet, I have FULL ACCESS to all of our internet, email, + other network features - this is doable, this "effect", with a few simple registry hacks, many of which are covered in the URL link below no less)...
HOWEVER - if you're a "standalone user" (meaning single machine online on the internet, say, from your home)?
This is EASILY secured!
That's easily done, as you more-or-less noted via YOUR method (stopping/disabling File & Print sharing)
OR
By even going a step further -> Stopping the SERVER service (disable it via services.msc)...
There is also a method using a batch file to stop ALL shares (yes, even administrative $ type ones, ala:
C:
NET SHARE C$
NET SHARE ADMIN$
NET SHARE IPC$
NET SHARE DFS$
NET SHARE COMCFG$
NET SHARE FAX$
NET SHARE NETLOGON
NET SHARE PRINT$
NET USE *& technically?
Each/ALL/ANY of those measures SHOULD work, just fine, in mitigating this prior to applying this patch (especially if you're a standalone machine on the internet @ home, with no home LAN present)...
(Feel free to correct me if I am off/wrong here fellas... thanks!)
APK
P.S.=> I cover that & MUCH more, here:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=49125ef36605621c1a4c34eb160411a9&showtopic=2662
&, yes, it works... vs. today's threats, especially - I say this, mainly because today's "security-suites" are NOT doing such a good job, vs. them, as evidenced here:
----
Top security suites fail exploit tests (COMPUTERWORLD):
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9117042&intsrc=news_ts_head [computerworld.com]
&/or
Top security suites fail exploit tests (SECUNIA):
----
&, the fact is? They're not that useful vs. threats coming from the REAL source of today's exploits (mostly), & that's javascript (+ iframes & bad or vulnerable plugins for webbrowsers, email programs, & even lately Adobe
PLUS - Hey, anyone can go to SECUNIA.COM &/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM for example & see my statement here just plain 'bears out as truth', just by seeing how much (a good 95%) of today's threats come from those sources... that guide above, however? IS... & again, it just works! apk
-
Put your "pecker" anywhere you like, & here is
"That depends, do you walk around all day with a rubber on your weiner? No? Newsflash, niether does your computer" - by noundi (1044080) on Thursday October 23, @10:15AM (#25481543)
Mine does, lol, essentially!
AND?
So can yours, or anyone else's, via following some simple steps (many common sense, others more complex), via this guide (which has you use a noted test of your system's security, which is multiplatform (not just restricted to Windows, but also to many *NIX variants as well), called CIS Tool):
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond it's "industry best practices" for security):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=49125ef36605621c1a4c34eb160411a9&showtopic=2662
----
The CIS Tool test is much like PC performance benchmark, but this one's for security!
(&, it reviewed well in COMPUTERWORLD no less for doing so)
----
"so stop putting it's dick everywhere." - by noundi (1044080) on Thursday October 23, @10:15AM (#25481543)
I can, & DO, because I use a simple concept, that works (no virus/worms/trojans/spyware/malware-in-general here, for more than a decade++ now in fact, because of this) -> I practice a thing called "Layered security", nowadays, & yes, it works!
( &, that's what that post from Tech Connect Magazine gives you, & shows YOU, the end user, how to do layered security of your system today, online... &, as a bonus? You'll even end up surfing F A S T E R as well... )
See - The problem with today's antivirus programs is that they're largely MOSTLY "signatures based" & with polymorphic viruses that can "mutate" into ones that look totally different to an antivirus program (defeating signatures based detections) from one minute to the next?
HEURISTICS ("looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck - IT MUST BE A DUCK!" type logic) is the way to go for them, alongside whitelisting &/or blacklisting of applications allowed to run!
I mean, take a look @ this CURRENT information on SECURITY SUITES failing left & right on tests run, vs. the threats out there, TODAY (not yesteryear tech in them):
----
Top security suites fail exploit tests (COMPUTERWORLD):
&/or
Top security suites fail exploit tests (SECUNIA):
----
The "old-school methods" (what security suites use generally - like anti-virus programs using virus detections signatures, which only work vs. KNOWN threats, when they ought to be concentrating on white or blacklisting sites &/or HEURISTICS levels of detection ("smells like a duck, tastes like a duck: IT MUST BE A DUCK!" type logic))
Signatures-based detections aren't working that well nowadays guys, vs. std. viruses... & MOST of what folks get today? They're bad javascript driven (in combination with iframes &/or bad or vulnerable plugins) usage, anyhow. AntiSpyware programs do better here, imo @ least, than antivirus programs do. By far...
After all, you know it, & I know it:
People - out online, today/nowadays?
The REAL, TRUE threat's out there today are coming thru your email, webbrowser, instant messenger programs!
(& even Adobe
-
TRUST THIS (layered security), &, a test
"Ok. Then what can we trust?" - by 404 Clue Not Found (763556) * on Thursday October 23, @09:49AM (#25481201)
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond it's "industry best practices" for security):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=49125ef36605621c1a4c34eb160411a9&showtopic=2662
----
You can trust that material in the URL link above! Mainly because it's YOU doing the work, yourself, albeit, with a tool that makes it some fun, & explains why you are weak in a particular area in securing your own system, yourself, with a fun to use tool to do so.
The CIS Tool test is much like PC performance benchmark, but this one's for security!
(&, it reviewed well in COMPUTERWORLD no less for doing so)
So, it's a test (which is what you asked for in fact) to quantify your improvements, after you do the work securing yourself based on its advisements (& points that go beyond just that test only are also in that guide above)
E.G. -> In not quite 1 yrs.' time online, it's passed over 200,000 views on the 27 forums its on, & people are doing well using it... but, take a peek @ it yourself, & YOU judge, as to whether it can help YOU, help yourself, vs. the threats present online, today.
----
"Without some sort of test, however imperfect, how is the average home user supposed to choose?" - by 404 Clue Not Found (763556) * on Thursday October 23, @09:49AM (#25481201)
Layered security!
( &, that's what that post from Tech Connect Magazine gives you, & shows YOU, the end user, how to do for security of your system today, online... &, as a bonus? You'll even end up surfing F A S T E R as well... )
The problem with today's antivirus programs is that they're largely MOSTLY "signatures based" & with polymorphic viruses that can "mutate" into ones that look totally different to an antivirus program (defeating signatures based detections) from one minute to the next?
HEURISTICS ("looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck - IT MUST BE A DUCK!" type logic) is the way to go for them, alongside whitelisting &/or blacklisting of applications allowed to run!
I mean, take a look @ this CURRENT information on SECURITY SUITES failing left & right on tests run, vs. the threats out there, TODAY (not yesteryear tech in them):
----
Top security suites fail exploit tests (COMPUTERWORLD):
&/or
Top security suites fail exploit tests (SECUNIA):
----
The "old-school methods" (what security suites use generally - like anti-virus programs using virus detections signatures, which only work vs. KNOWN threats, when they ought to be concentrating on white or blacklisting sites &/or HEURISTICS levels of detection ("smells like a duck, tastes like a duck: IT MUST BE A DUCK!" type logic))
Signatures-based detections aren't working that well nowadays guys, vs. std. viruses... & MOST of what folks get today? They're bad javascript driven (in combination with iframes &/or bad or vulnerable plugins) usage, anyhow. AntiSpyware programs do better here, imo @ least, than antivirus programs do. By far...
After all, you know it, & I know it:
People - The REAL, TRUE threat's out there today are coming thru your email, webbrowser, instant messenger programs (& even Adobe
-
Re:Well, here we go
"Try s/hours/seconds/. Happened to me. I can't tell you how much I hated everything MS at that point." - by jonaskoelker (922170) on Saturday October 18, @10:41AM (#25423837) Homepage
Apply what is noted in the URL below?
It WON'T happen again (as long as you can obey some simple rules & adhere to them) via using a simple security auditing tool + some points that layer ontop of its advisements:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=ad237c5fce1ee1aed169f7eac9f189f0&showtopic=2662
It really works, & if you do NOT know this stuff (which per your statement, you evidently do NOT) Take a read, so it does not happen to you again.
APK
P.S.=> By the by - CIS Tool & other points in that guide, such as how to use a HOSTS file for BOTH added speed & security online, are NOT RESIRICTED TO JUST WINDOWS (evidence thereof is in the very 1st post there, from a member here named Bert64, on SuSE Linux, an SeLinux bearing distro (which he had to do work using that no less to get a far better score than the default mind you, which is the SAME on Windows as it is on Linux (46/100 ranges, & then BOTH scored into the 90++/100 ranges afterwards)))...
I.E.-> Neither Windows, nor Linux (OR, other *NIX variants either) are absolutely as "secure as can be" outta the box/oem stock! apk
-
Re:Countries?
"And part of the solution is not "attacking", but defending having things right in your side. Detect infected and vulnerable sites and pcs and warn/educate owners/vendors about that, as they are the perfect source for i.e. a big DDos or other kind of attacks. That US is the biggest source of spam and probably botnet activity of the world is a good warning sign." - by gmuslera (3436) on Thursday October 16, @01:30PM (#25402367) Homepage
Agreed, 110% - &, if ISP/BSP's can detect who is sending out spam, etc. et al (& they can)?
Well, you inform those affected people.
Then, you also "turn them on" to material such as this ->
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& more beyond its advisements, based on industry 'best practices' for security):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=1a53fb234dde18097a6daf03ab149062&showtopic=2662
(Because it works, & shows ordinary people how to defend themselves, by using an easy to use tool (CIS Tool), AND, some simple ideas to follow & use (the hard part, too many people use javascript, the main infection vector used nowadays in 90% of the attacks out there (in combination w/ IFrames + plugins) & just going to SECUNIA.COM &/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can show anybody that much!) to protect themselves!)
APK
-
Re:Simple solution:
"Turn off JavaScript, Java, Flash, and other plugins on the browser you use for web searches and general goofing around on the web." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09, @05:33PM (#25320885)
That's not going to stop you from being infected. You're only changing the browser used to infect yourself with what you suggest! OS used? Doesn't matter either... the DOM is the same, & since javascript/iframes/plugins run on Linux & other OS'? They're no safer, period. They're less exploited, because from the POV of a botmaster, you go after the MOST USED OS THERE IS, & that is Windows (for the greatest 'surface area to attack', that also generally overall has less "technically inclined users", where *NIX generally has "pure techno geeks", mostly).
"Use a different browser for trusted sites for serious uses" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09, @05:33PM (#25320885)
Again, same deal as my previous reply to what I quoted from you - you're only changing the browser that infects you via this attack (&, NONE OF THEM ARE SAFE vs. it, unless you take some measures yourself, via what I wrote below here, weeks ago, when this first surface (& I was correct on no less)):
----
Alarm Raised For "Clickjacking" Browser Exploit:
----
I "got lucky", there, & had guessed EXACTLY what plugin was affected back then (ADOBE FLASH), & for about a year now, on various technical forums online (27 in total) I suggested TURNING OFF JAVASCRIPT/IFRAMES/PLUGINS usage for users, to stay safe online vs. these types of attacks, & yes, MANY others also!
(I.E.-> DON'T USE JAVASCRIPT/PLUGINS/IFRAMES on "every site under the sun you go to"(& instead ONLY LEAVE IT ACTIVE FOR SITES THAT DEMAND THEIR USAGE (such as online banking &/or shopping sites often require for data access)... all other sites? Heck, turn it off... be safe(r) by far & FASTER AS WELL (due to not processing adbanners &/or webpage script tags code either))
APK
P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now (see points after #12th posting in regards to this statement of mine here & there below also):
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=73ccc6e6bcaa3f449c71fc76a0e40212&showtopic=2662
AND, as you can see? IT JUST WORKS (even vs. the "latest/greatest" security threats/hacks/vulnerabilities? Common-sense usually does work)... apk
-
I was correct, per SecurityFocus.com & Secunia
Looks like I was correct in my "guess" here, in the post I did here two weeks ago (where I indicated stopping plugins, specifically ADOBE FLASH PLAYER), which was the reply I just replied to in THIS followup posting:
http://secunia.com/advisories/32163/
SALIENT QUOTE:
"A vulnerability has been reported in Adobe Flash Player, which can be exploited by malicious people to bypass certain security restrictions and disclose potentially sensitive information. The vulnerability is caused due to a design error and can be exploited to e.g. gain access to the system's camera and microphone by tricking the user into clicking Flash Player access control dialogs disguised as normal graphical elements. The vulnerability is reported in version 9.0.124.0. Other versions may also be affected. Solution: The vendor recommends disabling Flash Player camera and microphone interactions"
----
It also appears that I was also correct in my "guess" here, in the post I did here two weeks ago, about stopping JavaScript also (despite the init. newspost here saying "javascript is not part of it" etc. et al):
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11534/2
SALIENT QUOTE:
"JavaScript increases the effectiveness of this attacks hugely, because it ensures that user will click our target no matter where he points -- that is, we can move the target around to stay always under the mouse pointer"
(A note to the news submitters here & the editors: Learn about this stuff, before stating things that are outright incorrect (such as the init. newspost stating turning off javascript would not help vs. this new threat... without understanding this stuff thoroughly, first? You'll end up eating your words...)
APK
P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
AND, as you can see? IT JUST WORKS (even vs. the "latest/greatest" security threats/hacks/vulnerabilities? Common-sense usually does work)... apk
-
I was correct, per SecurityFocus.com & Secunia
Looks like I was correct in my "guess" here, in the post I did here two weeks ago (where I indicated stopping plugins, specifically ADOBE FLASH PLAYER), which was the reply I just replied to in THIS followup posting:
http://secunia.com/advisories/32163/
SALIENT QUOTE:
"A vulnerability has been reported in Adobe Flash Player, which can be exploited by malicious people to bypass certain security restrictions and disclose potentially sensitive information. The vulnerability is caused due to a design error and can be exploited to e.g. gain access to the system's camera and microphone by tricking the user into clicking Flash Player access control dialogs disguised as normal graphical elements. The vulnerability is reported in version 9.0.124.0. Other versions may also be affected. Solution: The vendor recommends disabling Flash Player camera and microphone interactions"
----
It also appears that I was also correct in my "guess" here, in the post I did here two weeks ago, about stopping JavaScript also (despite the init. newspost here saying "javascript is not part of it" etc. et al):
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11534/2
SALIENT QUOTE:
"JavaScript increases the effectiveness of this attacks hugely, because it ensures that user will click our target no matter where he points -- that is, we can move the target around to stay always under the mouse pointer,"
APK
P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
AND, as you can see? IT JUST WORKS (even vs. the "latest/greatest" security threats/hacks/vulnerabilities: Common-sense usually does work)... apk
-
Re:Vista Home
Yeah. I do. I figured that was the problem. So, my question is this...
Is it better to have 2GB of dual-channeled RAM, or is it better to have 3GB of non-dual-channeled RAM (which is what I have if I leave all 4 sticks in)?
Thanks!
I'm not a hardware guy but....
This link (from 2005) has some benchmarks between dual and single: http://www.tcmagazine.com/articles.php?action=show&id=128
From the last page:
"The ambiguity in most of the benchmark results we saw today sends a very clear message: on todayâ(TM)s systems, the advantages of Dual Channel memory setups are negligible for average users.
While some memory specific benchmarks, those designed to saturate bus bandwidth, demonstrated the Dual Channel systemâ(TM)s superiority, very few real-life applications took advantage of it, and some games even managed to perform better on the Single Channel setup."
My logic is as follows: if the extra GB keeps you from paging out to disk even a small number of times, it probably more than compensates for the small performance disadvantage of one channel vs dual. Of course, YMMV.
-
Re:LINUX has viruses, not as many, like usercounts
"while you are true that there are viruses for Linux and it is a smaller target, they are not JUST as vulnerable, the entire UNIX base (small programs that do little and user privilege restrictions) make UNIX systems much more secure from the start. Its also pretty much impossible to infect a well secured system (SELINUX + PAX + hardened toolchain) and this seams like an extra layer to provide automated selinux-like functionality." - by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Sunday September 28, @04:45PM (#25186999)
Agreed on their being viruses for Linux, just not as many because it is not as targetted (for the reasons I stated in my first post most likely)...
AND?
On SeLinux & hardening?? You're correct... &, additionally, I hear you about SeLinux (or other tools like AppArmor in other Linux distros as well), but...
I.E., as far as SeLinux? Well - It appears that generally YOU yourself, have to USE IT, manually, & set it up (much like SCW for Windows Server 2003)... &, just like security-hardening Windows it seems, there is some manual labor involved!
See the 1st page of that URL below in fact, for some proof thereof:
---
Evidenced by a posting I have done for Windows users in fact, late last year, as to "security hardening" Windows (&, even an SeLinux bearing distro, SuSe Enterprise):
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & EVEN VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&, more):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=00c84096252cd4648befe541d41ecf9d&showtopic=2662
(Currently, iirc, since Dec. 2007, this one has gained over 200,000++ views worldwide, & additionally got me paid via winning PCPitStop's monthly tech posting contest, for January 2008... it works!)
I say this, because, it has been tested via numerous others using it & months later stating they AND THEIR CLIENTS'systems, even that of kids & teens, no less, which have not been infected/infested, since this guide's points were applied!
Screenshots ARE there, from one of your members here in fact no less, as regards an SeLinux bearing distro, in SuSE Enterprise edition iirc!
On SeLinux bearing distros even?? Once more - Apparently, to gain its FULL functionality, & harden Linux via SeLinux usage, for yourself... it's some work!
(In fact/again - Evidence of that from one of your own here (Bert64) is there, using SuSe Linux (an SELinux bearing distro) showing by default? Linux doesn't score any better than Windows does (46/100 scores) by default... HOWEVER - "security-hardened" though? BOTH Windows & Linux can gain 90++/100 range type scores!)
Yes, sure - Comparing "Apples to Oranges", in diff. OS' yes, but the point IS there... That they BOTH are relatively "open/unsecured" out-of-the-box, oem-stock, is the MAIN thrust/point of my statements here in my reply to you!
---
It is a guide I have been building steadily onto since 1997 in fact, for Windows users... an outgrowth of my first article online in "Article #1" over @ NTCompatible.com, & this is is CURRENT 'evolution'...
It deals mainly in how to SECURE (&, even speed up) Windows, & it has been quantified via CIS Tool!
(I have been improving each year I discover more & new ways to do so in fact, & tested via the multiplatform CIS Tool (which runs on variants of *NIX as well, inclusive of Solaris, BSD-variants (no MacOS X version yet though, sorry), PLUS Linux distros))
---
The exact SAME can be done for Windows, as SeLinux can do (via SCW for instance, or Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer + other tools native to the OS, such as Registry &/or FileSystem ACL's & more)... and, Linux (even SeLinux &/or AppArmor bearing distros) is NOT as well secured out of the box, oem-stock, as you may think - proof of this is below
-
Re:Bullshit? IFrames + Plugins & Javascript (A
Well... IFrames, &/or Plugins (specifically Adobe Flash is my guess here) ARE what you need to worry about!
(Though, supposedly from what I have been reading? Turning off javascript does NOT hurt, & does actually help (despite the last line of the init. post here)).
Here is about as "close to the truth" as you'll get, due to "responsible disclosure" (rather than FULL disclosure... so, go to the guys that 'discovered it'):
http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2008/09/cancelled-clickjacking-owasp-appsec.html
(Just "2nd'ing your motion", to go to the "horses mouth")...
APK
P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
apk
-
Re:Bullshit? Not b.s. -IFrames & Plugins + JSc
"I don't think this exploit really exists. A cross browser cross platform exploit that doesn't use javascript?
Won't be losing any sleep over this one." - by sakdoctor (1087155) on Thursday September 25, @04:26PM (#25156779) HomepageWell... IFrames, &/or Plugins (specifically Adobe Flash is my guess here) are what you need to worry about!
(Though, supposedly from what I have been reading? Turning off javascript does NOT hurt, & does actually help (despite the last line of the init. post here)).
Here is about as "close to the truth" as you'll get, due to "responsible disclosure" (rather than FULL disclosure... so, go to the guys that 'discovered it'):
http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2008/09/cancelled-clickjacking-owasp-appsec.html
APK
P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
apk
-
Re:Information
"You call this "information"? It's not even clear what the exploit is about." - by asCii88 (1017788) on Thursday September 25, @04:24PM (#25156725) Homepage
IFrames, &/or Plugins (specifically Adobe Flash is my guess here) are what you need to worry about... though, supposedly from what I have been reading? Turning off javascript does NOT hurt, & does actually help (despite the last line of the init. post here).
APK
P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off', as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites)), here, for more than a year now:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
apk
-
RESTRUCTURE, BUT, AS A SECURITY HELP CENTER?
Perhaps this type of guidance & aid to your fellow students may be of use (as a "new type of service" your group may offer others), ala points such as are noted in this guide online:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do" via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond that):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=997120fdbd632fa871dc28209608c6a3&showtopic=2662
* Simply changing your role, & the services you could offer others, is a start...
(
APK
P.S.=> CIS Tool, & the other points (many of which 'layer ontop of' CIS Tool's points for securing a system), also applies to various *NIX variants (& distros, such as are seen in Linux for instance/example) - so, thus, you're NOT "solely restricted to Windows users, only" etc. et al
-
Re:Like the man said...
"And the solution is a thing called "noscript" - by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday September 07, @08:57AM (#24909439) Homepage
That's ONLY FOR FIREFOX! The solution I am going to show you extends to ANY web-bound/based program (including all browsers &/or email clients + more, mind you) & is also MULTIPLATFORM (meaning good on *NIX, Windows, or any OS that utilizes a normal Tcp/IP stack (based off berkeley system etc.)...
"If you filter out all those adverts then you'll do a lot fewer DNS lookups every time you view a page. It's adverts and multimedia which make the internet feel slow because they create many extra connections, DNS lookups, etc. Javascript too, sometimes I go to apage with a video on it which is blocked by noscript and I give up clicking "temporarily allow XXX" before I get to the video. It's just not worth it. Scripts from a dozen sites, adverts from a dozen others, three or four flash animations.... "There's your problem", as Mythbusters would say." - by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday September 07, @08:57AM (#24909439) Homepage
Agreed, 110%... so, that said: Want to speed up your online experience (&, secure it, @ the SAME TIME + across any & ALL webbased/webbound apps you have)?
Try this (it works for BOTH speed online (especially vs. adbanners/flash etc. et al) & security too as a bonus:
I do away with bad sites (their bushwhacking code), via known sites that are blocked by various reputable sources (see below), by using a custom HOSTS file, & of course, NOT leaving javascript running on "every site there is", especially when it is NOT absolutely required to gain function from a page (I personally only feel scripting is useful for shopping &/or banking sites online, otherwise, it's just 'eye candy' scripts yield (or, bad adbanners &/or bad sitecode that infects you)!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet") Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online.
How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=30295b6f438594c7be59eb6bec884eb0&showtopic=2662&st=25&start=25# [tcmagazine.com]
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content.
I also use a custom HOSTS file, but, I use a MORE EFFICIENT blocking IP (instead of 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0, I use plain-jane 0... resulting in a smaller HOSTS file, that loads faster AND OCCUPIES LESS RAM also (thus, a more efficient structure that yields the SAME bonuses ))
Plus, it's "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 (vs. 0.0.0.0, or, 127.0.0.1) as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) & also changes any 127.0.0.1 (or, 0.0.0.0) to 0 instead (smaller & faster, but does the same thing) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well (because Delphi on Linux = KYLIX)!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned web
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content.
I use something even simpler -> I go that '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file!
Plus, it's "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 (vs. 0.0.0.0, or, 127.0.0.1) as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well (because Delphi on Linux = KYLIX)!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD ones!
(& they also actually work out better for performance, in that I save IO & RAM by cu
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content.
Quite a bit of time is wasted in calling out to DNS servers to first of all, resolve the calls to the servers that serve up the adbanners, & then, downloading their data, and lastly parsing & processing + running the scripts for adbanners (or page work itself extending HTML via script tags & their associated scripting language) also.
I do away with bad sites (their bushwhacking code), via known sites that are blocked by various reputable sources (see below), by using a custom HOSTS file, & of course, NOT leaving javascript running on "every site there is", especially when it is NOT absolutely required to gain function from a page (I personally only feel scripting is useful for shopping &/or banking sites online, otherwise, it's just 'eye candy' scripts yield (or, bad adbanners &/or bad sitecode that infects you)!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this bec
-
Re:Like the man said...
I also go that '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file!
However, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others, such as the someonewhocares model you note)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD ones!
(& they also actually work out better for performance, in that I save IO
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content.
I also go that '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file (to block BOTH adbanners (especially poisoned ones, KNOWN poisoned ones) & known bad sites)!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD ones!
(& they also actually work
-
Re:Like the man said...
I also go that '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD ones!
(& they also actually work out better for performance, in that I save IO & RAM by cutting off the DNS Client service i
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content. HOSTS file
For FireFox 3.01, I gain speed AND security, via AdBlock Plus, + NoScript, & Perspectives
However, I go that EXTRA '1 step further', using a custom HOSTS file!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD on
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content.
For FireFox 3.01, I gain speed AND security, via AdBlock Plus, + NoScript, & Perspectives
However, I also go that '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
----
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
----
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD
-
Re:Banner ad's, dynamic content.
For FireFox 3.01, I gain speed AND security, via AdBlock Plus, + NoScript, & Perspectives
However, I also go '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked\
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
----
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
----
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD ones!
(& they also actually work out better for perform
-
Re:Exactly. That and virus.
I go '1 step further', by using a custom HOSTS file ("above & beyond" just using FireFox addons like Flashblock, NoScript, AdBlockPlus, & even the new PERSPECTIVES)!
Plus, "not just any HOSTS file", but one built from reputable sources over a decade now!
I used valid/reputable sources for my custom HOSTS file, such as:
A.) The wikipedia page for HOSTS files (which showcases ones like mvps.org's model & 4-5 others)
B.) My own HOSTS file that had 28,000 blocked adbanner servers, bad sites, &/or bad adbanner serving servers etc. blocked
C.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" immunize functions' lists
D.) Gaining "the most current intel on this subject" (known malicious websites), via Dancho Danchev's blogspot for this, & stopbadware.org (google)
It's very comprehensive, & uses literally the MOST efficient format there is for blocking alone, by using 0 as the blocking IP address-to-URL equation addy used. Very small this way, took my file down from 20mb to 12mb in size, yet it allows the SAME blocking function - thus, a more efficient structure, that lends/yields the SAME benefits for both speed & security.
Thus, this HOSTS file universally extends to ALL of my web-bound programs, such as other webbrowser programs (IE8 & Opera 9.6x) & email programs, you-name-it (as long as it "hits the internet")
Guess what...? Yes, it works, & for FAR better speed and security online. How do I accomplish this? Via a program I created.
E.G.-> A friend of mine is using the 12mb sized custom HOSTS file I use & the file is additionally "normalized" (all repeat duplicate entries removed & all entries FULLY alphabetized for easy search also via notepad.exe) monthly, via a program I have written for this:
APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++:
(Pictured on that page in post #36)
This program also speeds up access to my fav. websites, via hardcoding their IP address (true one, not blocking 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1) equation into the HOSTS file & the program has a pinger built into it to make those be @ their current IP address from OpenDNS servers as my DNS servers & the program is written in Borland Delphi - Thus, it is easily portable to Linux as well!
I am considering "open sourcing it" (once I add in the FTP code which I have working in another of my apps, just a matter of "transplanting it" to this one, for downloads of new updated HOSTS files), via Kylix, & quickly, via my use of the literally proven fastest language for both MATH & STRINGS there is short of pure assembler!
(Yes, even faster than say, MSVC++ & was proven thus in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER", of all places (competing language mag no less, where Delphi absolutely TRASHED both MSVB5 &/or MSVC++ 6 in speed on 7/10 tests, & DOUBLED them in math & strings, which every program does, but especially strings on this one, so... it made sense to build it in this because of that))
Anyhow, my main tester (He is 1 of 2 testers I have so far), states he literally feels he surfs 3x as fast using this file (vs. when he has javascript on (recommend this, & all other browser plugins stay off for both security & speed's sake + iframes too = off) + adbanners shown).
Yea, it works, & for both security AND SPEED, online today (especially nowadays, & the past 2-4 yrs. now, in this "era of the poisoned webpage &/or adbanner").
APK
P.S.=> There are 2 "catch-22's" here, however, when using a HOSTS file size of that order (12mb example I note), but they're actually GOOD ones!
(& they also actually work out better for performance, in that I save IO & RAM by cutting off the DNS